Abolish P4P!

I'm cool with comparison of fighters on a one-by-one basis, or comparing attributes p4p. Like saying "Rafael Marquez punches harder p4p than Eddie Chambers". Or "Tomasz Adamek has better handspeed p4p than Ricky Hatton". Or even "Ike Quartey is much better p4p than Jermain Taylor".

But a top fighter p4p ranking system is so subject to corruption and favoritism that I'd rather not see one used at all. People aren't to be trusted, they're going to abuse it and give it a bad name. So why even bother? Why not just have a personal list of the "top ten most talented fighters regardless of weight (p4p if you like) IMO" - instead of having journalists and boxing sites come up with "official" p4p lists that 9 times out of 10 are based on celebrity more than actual talent?

 

:hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi:

 

Accurate? As though it were a matter of scientific fact? Whose are you talking about, anyway? Some website? Some poster? Some magazine? Which one's supposed to be the 'official' one? Any p4p list is an individual opinion and should be treated as such. People striving to come to terms and reach one, common, bona fide 'accurate' p4p list is a totally bogus pipe dream. There can never and will never be consistency or 'accuracy'. They're like snowflakes - no two peoples' p4p lists are alike, if you go down far enough. Sure, many might agree on a top three. Fewer will agree on a top five, and fewer still on a top ten. Finding two people with identical top 20 lists is akin to a haystack needlehunt. 'Accurate' doesn't belong in the same sentence as 'p4p'. I won't deny that it's a good way of gauging approximately where a fighter ranks compared to other great fighters in different weight classes (IF - big IF - it's done correctly, based on demonstrated talent regardless of opposition and NOT how many known-name trophies are on a resume) - but the pedestal on which it is put and the officiality with which the lists of certain publications and websites are treated - is a joke. No amount of expertise or reputability can make ANY p4p list 'official'. By nature all it's good for is a conversational tool, to spark discussion between people in comparing their avowedly subjective lists - which are expected by nature to vary from person to person depending on their perspective. That's where p4p can be useful - the second people say "no that's WRONG, so-and-so ISN'T p4p #6, he's p4p #13" is when it gets ridiculous. These aren't facts you're talking about. It's not totally arbitrary, but nor is it anywhere near an exact science. There can never be a 'right' or 'wrong'.

That's first of all. That's in a perfect world where people are rating just visible current talent (meaning a total domination of a B-level opponent, or overcoming a styles disadvantage against a fringe contender gets you a HIGHER rating than coasting to an easy, cautious decision over a shot former champ or hyped young paper champ) and not taking holistic resumes and established names into consideration. Even in that perfect world (which doesn't exist) - p4p should be nothing mroe than a light conversation piece for individuals to share their perspective and be exposed and open-minded to others. It's not ever something that should be regarded as 'official'. It should not become an honorific that people argue about (no, Pacquiao is #2...no, he isn't...neener, neener, eat my weiner... :roll

Second of all, it isn't a perfect world. That ISN'T how people compile p4p lists. The current method is NOT PURE. People don't determine who their subjective view of the best is regardless of weight class based on talent. Neither do most websites, tv commentators, or magazines. They all determine who they think the best is regardless of weight class based on accomlishment (and maybe factor in talent as an afterthought). There are all sorts of examples to support this. Tarver is the most glaringly obvious one in recent memory. Was he ever one of the top ten most talented fighters in the world? The night he first beat Roy, was he at that moment one of the top ten most talented fighters in the world? You might have thought so, based on a lot of 'official' or otherwise self-important p4p lists.

So really the way I see it two things need to happen.

A) This is the more important step...people need to change their criteria for p4p. Put the kaibosh on "to be the man you got to beat the man". Actually use your eyes and witness displays of talent and rank fighters based on that. Sure, the quality of opposition can and should be factored into it to a point, but don't give a win over a shot Erik Morales the same weight as a win over a prime Erik Morales, just because he's still a beloved and well-known name. This is my main problem with p4p. It's based on "who did you beat, have I heard of them?" - not "how do you beat the people you beat? what mastery or innovation of the craft do you demonstrate, regardless of opposition? how do you overcome adversity...and...(important distinction from the other method)...who did you beat, and regardless of whether or not the average casual boxing fan has heard of them, are they any good right now?"

B) Even if the system is reformed, I don't want to see anybody calling any p4p list - even a 'pure' one based on talent as described above - called official or accurate. You can say one individual, or one magazine, or one website, tends to be pretty on the money with their rankings, in your opinion - but don't ever call anyone's list 'right'. Because that is simply not possible.

 

What do you consider achievement though? Beating famous fighters? Or beating world-class fighters without worrying about whether the American HBO audience has ever seen them perform in Vegas before?

 

Wow, this is really a very close poll. And I STRONGLY suspect that a lot of the people voting in favor of the current p4p rankings are either making a kneejerk reaction without hearing me out, or don't fully understand where I'm coming from. Hence the long posts - I want to make myself as CLEAR as possible. I think once you comprehend my position, it's really hard to disagree with.

 

That's perfectly fair and reasonable. Beating Kessler was an accomplishment - but you're actually helping prove my point there. Kessler wasn't an accomplishment because he was a 'commodity fighter' beloved by the American HBO audience (who had seen him all of once before then) - he was an accomplishment because he had demonstrated his skill by beating lots of B and C-level opposition in Europe and collecting belts in dominating fashion under the radar of the casual boxing public.

I don't want to 'do away with accomplishment' and I'm sorry if there are mixed signals going out, I'll try and articulate a bit better. I want to do away with overrating high-profile big-name accomplishments, and calling victories over has-beens with huge followings 'accomplishments' when by rights, they are not.